Bug 1016383

Summary:	During interactive installation, wording of component installation prompts are inconsistent or too minimalist
Product:	Red Hat OpenStack	Reporter:	Bruce Reeler <breeler>
Component:	openstack-packstack	Assignee:	Martin Magr <mmagr>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Lon Hohberger <lhh>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	4.0	CC:	aortega, ddomingo, derekh, hateya, rlandman, yeylon
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	OtherQA, Triaged
Target Release:	4.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-12-20 00:26:22 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Bruce Reeler 2013-10-08 05:26:00 UTC

Description of problem:
During an interactive OpenStack installation using PackStack, the wording of the component installation prompts are inconsistent or minimal.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
4.0 Havana

How reproducible:
Run PackStack interactively. 
During the first ten prompts which are mostly for installing OpenStack components, some prompts are of the format:
"Should Packstack install OpenStack <component name> service (codename)", but others are:
"Should Packstack install OpenStack <component name> (codename) service".

Also, Heat installation prompt just says "Should PackStack install Heat".

Expected results:
Make all prompts similar, I'd suggest:
"Should Packstack install OpenStack <component name> service (codename)", 
for example:
Should Packstack install OpenStack Block Storage service (Cinder).

Additional info:
There is also a mix of upper and lower case for the names. This should be standardized, e.g. the component names should be capitals and "service" lower case, as in example above.

Comment 2 Alvaro Lopez Ortega 2013-11-13 18:28:48 UTC

AFAIK, Francesco fixed this one already. Let's double check it before it's closed.

Comment 5 Lon Hohberger 2013-12-11 22:50:34 UTC

Results:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1030767#c5

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2013-12-20 00:26:22 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2013-1859.html